Spotify, other music services allege Apple App Store policies anti-competitive

12346»

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 106
    brucemcbrucemc Posts: 1,541member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sflagel View Post

     

    I completely understand your concern for artist's income that is driven down by services like Spotify, no doubt many musicians will consider this a threat to their livelihood. It is truly frightening to be in an industry where margins are being squeezed and the perceived value of one's work is eroded, or taken by another player in the value chain. They have every right to fight this threat.  They can do so by pulling their music, working with their labels, doing PR, asking for regulatory action, etc.

    ....

    Maybe the beer industry is a good model to study? It transformed itself from the piss that was drunk in America until the 90s to a vibrant high-quality craft beer industry that supports 1000's of small and mid-sized breweries.

     


    Well said.  Good piece.  Loving the US craft beer industry now.

  • Reply 102 of 106
    rob55rob55 Posts: 1,291member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sflagel View Post





    That's the argument but don't think so, for these reasons:

    - margin pressure usually results in better products, not worse, at a lower price

    - music is a mass product, there is no shortage of musicians. the winners and losers are not necessarily chosen by quality

    - the most profitable era for music, the 80's, was also musically the least diverse decade



    So I say: let there be competition, let there be pressure on margins.

     

    To your first point, this is not always true. I've got a broken washer and refrigerator that are each less than 5 years old that would contradict your assertion.

     

    To your second point, I somewhat agree. All they seem to churn out nowadays is a bunch of commercialized crap in my opinion. And the labels seem so insistent on cramming it down our throats. 

     

    To your third point, I don't dispute that the 80s was the most profitable era for music, but having recently compiled extensive playlists of the Billboard top 100 for each of the last 50 years, I have to disagree about it being the least diverse decade. Like Foggyhill, there are other decades I'd give that distinction to.

     

    "Let there be competition, let there be pressure on margins" sounds like yet another industry racing to the bottom. 

  • Reply 103 of 106
    sflagelsflagel Posts: 830member
    Quote:



    Originally Posted by Rob55 View Post

     

     

    To your first point, this is not always true. I've got a broken washer and refrigerator that are each less than 5 years old that would contradict your assertion.

     

    To your second point, I somewhat agree. All they seem to churn out nowadays is a bunch of commercialized crap in my opinion. And the labels seem so insistent on cramming it down our throats. 

     

    To your third point, I don't dispute that the 80s was the most profitable era for music, but having recently compiled extensive playlists of the Billboard top 100 for each of the last 50 years, I have to disagree about it being the least diverse decade. Like Foggyhill, there are other decades I'd give that distinction to.

     

    "Let there be competition, let there be pressure on margins" sounds like yet another industry racing to the bottom. 


     

    The statement that the 80's had the least variety in music comes from a study done by two universities in London, I have no idea if it is true or not, but in case you are interested: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2015/05/06/music-last-50-years/#.VUxxbflVhBc).

     

    Arguably, this probably relates more to the US than the UK. I lived in the US in the late '80s and there really was ONLY rock music (and some R&B was just coming out of the wood works on "urban radio"), while the UK had a flurry of creativity; and of course Germany had the genius of Modern Talking! So globally, there was more diversity (you can't get more diverse than Poison vs Modern Talking vs Boy George), but that was because the world was not as globalised as today, not because musicians were making a lot of  money. Indeed, some of the worst musicians were making the most.

  • Reply 104 of 106
    suddenly newtonsuddenly newton Posts: 13,819member
    [SIZE=14px]The pro-Apple zealots can fry me for all I care, but this sort of scrutiny is par for the course given Apple's size and influence today. <span style="line-height:1.4em;">The problem is that success and size have come so quickly and so dramatically for Apple that it has not-- and we have not -- grown out of its "small, beleaguered" company mentality.</span>
    [/SIZE]

    One of these narratives is not true:
    1. Apple is doomed.
    2. Apple is big and successful.
  • Reply 105 of 106
    alcstarheelalcstarheel Posts: 554member
    jbdragon wrote: »
    Yes, Google Pay charges 30%, so does Amazon.  But they Don't charge anything on what they sell like ebooks or a Subscription, which is what Apple is doing.   The App in the store is FREE. so 30% of FREE is ZERO.  Apple, Google, and Amazon makes nothing hosting the App.  Apple gets 30% if you subscribe to the service where they don't.  Apple takes care of processing the payment every month.  Is that worth a 30% cut?  They have no choice of handling the payment's themselves.  They can't even send people to their web site in the App to subscribe that way.  I think the policy is a little to strict.  Maybe a 30% cut every month for as long as you're paying for the service, which could be years, maybe a little high.  
    You are wrong. Sorry. Google takes 30% on subscriptions, too.

    https://developer.android.com/google/play/billing/billing_subscriptions.html

    1000

    Same thing with Amazon.

    https://developer.amazon.com/appsandservices/support/faq

    1000

    Google Play does the EXACT same thing that the App Store does. 30% for all app transactions (in-app purchases, downloads, and subscriptions) and no links can be within the app to external stores to make said app transactions. Amazon also charges 30%. Where is Spotify with the complaints about Google Play or the Amazon Store?
  • Reply 106 of 106
    john.bjohn.b Posts: 2,742member

    I'm curious, what affiliation do you have with Spotify?  The reason I ask is that you seem to be highly emotionally invested in their success:

     

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JBDragon View Post

     

    You do know that Artists only get a few pennies per CD sold!!!!  The Labels get the biggest cut, followed by the Producers, the Song writer, and on the bottom is the Artist!!!  Unless you're something with their OWN label like Jay Z and so can keep most of the money!!!

     

    Lossless from a CD is still lower quality then true Lossless!!!   How is Spotify a Leach?  They pay out around 70%, which is a whole 5% less then the 75% Tidal is making such a huge deal over.  The money handout for them is no different from Spotify!!!

     

    http://www.spotifyartists.com/spotify-explained/


     

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JBDragon View Post

     

    If you want lossless, burning from a CD is NOT it.  The CD right from the start downgraded the audio quality!!!  Besides unless you are is a really good envoroment with really high end speakers, you're not going to be able to tell the difference unless you're downloading low quality MP3's.     Lossless is really just a huge space waster.  


     

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JBDragon View Post

     

    What, Radio pays out money?  Spotify pays out a ton of money.   Just like a CD sale, the Artists is the last person in line to get their cut!!!  

     

    http://www.spotifyartists.com/spotify-explained/


     

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JBDragon View Post

     

    The Spotify doesn't payout myth is a LIE!!!  Spotify pays out around 70%. That's 5% less then what Tidal is making such a huge deal over!!!

    The fact is The Labels get all the money, and they pass it out according to the contracts signed!!!!  The labels get the biggest chunk, followed by the Producers, then the writers, and on the bottom of the pile is the Artist!!!   This isn't going to magically change with Tidal or anyone else for that matter.  These same Artists get a few pennies per CD sold!!!   Unless you're someone like Jay Z with your own label!!!

     

    http://www.spotifyartists.com/spotify-explained/


     

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JBDragon View Post

     

    Spotify costs more then Netflix and I think Netflix is by far the better deal and they're making money!!!

     

    There's a lot of money being made by Artists on Spotify!!!  Most of them though are getting screwed by their own labels!!!  The labels are getting all the money and dishing it out which them getting most of it, then the producers and then song writers and on the bottom is the Artist.  Unless you're Jay Z with your own label in which you can keep far more of the money!!!    Artists get crap for the CD's sold.  a few pennies.    You didn't get crap for Radio.  In fact labels would pay the radio stations to play the music.  That generated sales for Tapes and then CD's.   For the artist to make money, it was LIVE Concerts and Merchandising.  As in selling CD's and Shirts, and Posters and whatnot at the shows.

     

    http://www.spotifyartists.com/spotify-explained/


     

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JBDragon View Post

     

    That myth people keep throwing out there is just that!

    http://www.spotifyartists.com/spotify-explained/


     

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JBDragon View Post

     

    You mean like tunes Radio and it's FREE service!!!

     

    http://www.spotifyartists.com/spotify-explained/


Sign In or Register to comment.